|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin software, network, and concept is called "Bitcoin" with a capitalized "B". Bitcoin currency units are called "bitcoins" with a lowercase "b" -- this is often abbreviated BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
ebereon
|
 |
March 19, 2014, 01:10:24 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VanBreuk
|
|
March 19, 2014, 01:14:16 AM |
|
More than ok, right on. And from the thread you quoted, not that I intend to compare it to King James' Speech, but this is nice: At this point NXT is less like a crypto and more like a company that had fairly small IPO. It's one of a few cryptos though that actually has huge ongoing development being done.
There are some huge wallets for NXT and there are a handful of people that could tank it, that's all true. The majority of these people realize though all the work that is being done and recognize the huge potential it all has.
I just bought into NXT yesterday pretty substantially. I'm aware of all the facts behind it but I just can't get past the fact that everything else is just a clone of bitcoin with no real future development work being done. If NXT has problems time will solve them, too many people are working on it to fail.
IF it does fail at this point, at least I threw my cards in on something that was a complete original work with a completely innovative set of ideas. I have no interest in the future of any other alt coins. I simply can't understand how they can even have a future outside of some minor niche markets. (like doge for tipping).
If instead of marketcap you could see 'developmental effort' next to each alt, there would an army of work that has been done for only a couple coins, Bitcoin and NXT. |
|
|
|
|
|
EvilDave
|
|
March 19, 2014, 01:26:00 AM |
|
Just saw a really good idea on XCP forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5773807#msg5773807It is about asset naming and it is very simple and I think quite effective. Basically once you own an Asset Name, then you can create a subasset for a much lower fee. this essentially allows branding of the root name and then people will know that anything that starts with that is from the same issuer So Anon gets his Anon136 asset name. Now he can issue: Anon136.silver1oz Anon136.silvershot Anon136.silveretc It still has a squatting issue with it, but now the squatters have to squat on the names of the issuers, not the target asset. This is far riskier as if a specific name is taken, there are always others that can be used. Unlike "BTC", which is unique. If we are going to change the NXTcore for asset names, this one might be worth doing. James Been almost completely ignoring the asset naming issue,but this makes complete sense...+10. BTW: Thanks for your mega post from earlier today, J. Good points all over... |
|
|
|
NxtMinnow
Member
 Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
March 19, 2014, 01:32:56 AM
Last edit: March 19, 2014, 01:47:22 AM by NxtMinnow |
|
I am receiving an "Unknown account" error once logged into AE when I try to send testNXT or buy Assets from newly created account. What is the problem?
EDIT: I created another Nxt Testnet account and have same "Unknown account" error. Please advise.
|
|
|
|
|
xyzzyx
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
I don't really come from outer space.
|
|
March 19, 2014, 01:49:58 AM |
|
Nope, I have mostly completed the messenger and friend functions, they both piggyback onto the block-chain in a really lightweight manner.
So you have to pay 1 nxt to send a message or friend somebody? By design messages are not sent on the blockchain as AM's to avoid bloating (in the implementation I'm designing). Cool. I was just about to send you a link to the paper Deployment of a Large-scale Peer-to-Peer Social Network by M Yang, et al. but it appears you've already got that aspect covered.  |
"An awful lot of code is being written ... in languages that aren't very good by people who don't know what they're doing." -- Barbara Liskov
|
|
|
|
mczarnek
|
|
March 19, 2014, 01:55:34 AM |
|
Nope, I have mostly completed the messenger and friend functions, they both piggyback onto the block-chain in a really lightweight manner.
So you have to pay 1 nxt to send a message or friend somebody? Yep. But, one could bundle several messages into one AM. and the fees are planning on dropping to .01 right? i keep reading this. Correct.  Nxt Facebook
That's what I'm working on ! I keep thinking "Diaspora". What makes your project different? Fees dropping to 0.01 - that will be very interesting. 0.01 Nxt would still be a high fee for messaging though... I would recommend a fee of about 0.0001 Nxt per message, if the only thing being sent is a message, the catch is you can only pay that low of a fee if the message is automatically deleted from the blockchain. I think the messages need to be perceived as being really cheap as we are competing against WhatsApp that offers messaging for 99 cents per year. The average teen sends 3,339 txts per month!! ( http://mashable.com/2010/10/14/nielsen-texting-stats/) This would be about 40,000 txts per year. Assuming he/she uses WhatsApp, that costs $0.99 per year, that works out to be $0.000025/txt Assuming Nxt will soon reach 10 cents that would be a fee of 0.00025 Nxt to compete with them on price alone, we also offer encryption but I'd say we really should try to compete when it comes to price as well. Because if we do it right, I do feel like this could be a killer app because we could probably even compete well with them price-wise. The money made off of this could then compensate for even lower transaction fees and the forgers could be profitable. And I worked through all the math but just deleted it to avoid clutter, I believe that we could even afford to charge lower than this assuming we delete messages once the app on the other end receives it, after all most text messages will be stored by the local apps on both sides and the blockchain/decentralized storage can be temporary.. only a few seconds in most cases. Forgers supporting the text messaging would have to be paid for their extra bandwidth though. Regard facebook built on top of Nxt.. actually I see some sense to that, we can afford to charge people a very low fee per post, that varies based on how long they want to store it, store it using the decentralized storage, the people in charge of make money off of that and use that money to advertise itself and grow a business. Why would people use it? Same advantage Dispora has, Diaspora is indeed very similar but I see it being hard to advertise itself, build it into Nxt and I know I would sign up for a Nxtbook account! |
|
|
|
|
Sebastien256
|
|
March 19, 2014, 01:55:39 AM |
|
Just saw a really good idea on XCP forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5773807#msg5773807It is about asset naming and it is very simple and I think quite effective. Basically once you own an Asset Name, then you can create a subasset for a much lower fee. this essentially allows branding of the root name and then people will know that anything that starts with that is from the same issuer So Anon gets his Anon136 asset name. Now he can issue: Anon136.silver1oz Anon136.silvershot Anon136.silveretc It still has a squatting issue with it, but now the squatters have to squat on the names of the issuers, not the target asset. This is far riskier as if a specific name is taken, there are always others that can be used. Unlike "BTC", which is unique. If we are going to change the NXTcore for asset names, this one might be worth doing. James This look like a good addition +1 |
|
|
|
|
bidji29
|
|
March 19, 2014, 01:57:58 AM |
|
Just saw a really good idea on XCP forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5773807#msg5773807It is about asset naming and it is very simple and I think quite effective. Basically once you own an Asset Name, then you can create a subasset for a much lower fee. this essentially allows branding of the root name and then people will know that anything that starts with that is from the same issuer So Anon gets his Anon136 asset name. Now he can issue: Anon136.silver1oz Anon136.silvershot Anon136.silveretc It still has a squatting issue with it, but now the squatters have to squat on the names of the issuers, not the target asset. This is far riskier as if a specific name is taken, there are always others that can be used. Unlike "BTC", which is unique. If we are going to change the NXTcore for asset names, this one might be worth doing. James To avoid squatting, the best solution is to have a very high fee to create an AssetName. Another problem (that Nodecoin revealed) is the fact people can receive assets without asking for them. It can be very problematic if it's abused. Poeple could create ton of asset then send them to all active account, indefinitely. You don't want ton of asset in your account you don't asked for. Real Spam. That's why i think an AssetName should go for 10'000 NXT at the launch. It could be modified based on NXT price, but it shouldn't be cheap. This subasset solution seems great, but with cheap SubAsset, people can spam for only the cost of one Asset. Maybe add the possibility to vote on Asset, and the very bad one are ignored, with all their SubAsset |
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:12:33 AM |
|
Just saw a really good idea on XCP forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5773807#msg5773807It is about asset naming and it is very simple and I think quite effective. Basically once you own an Asset Name, then you can create a subasset for a much lower fee. this essentially allows branding of the root name and then people will know that anything that starts with that is from the same issuer So Anon gets his Anon136 asset name. Now he can issue: Anon136.silver1oz Anon136.silvershot Anon136.silveretc It still has a squatting issue with it, but now the squatters have to squat on the names of the issuers, not the target asset. This is far riskier as if a specific name is taken, there are always others that can be used. Unlike "BTC", which is unique. If we are going to change the NXTcore for asset names, this one might be worth doing. James it could still collide if someone else registered Anon136.silver10z |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
brooklynbtc
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
AKA jefdiesel
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:16:57 AM |
|
Just saw a really good idea on XCP forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5773807#msg5773807It is about asset naming and it is very simple and I think quite effective. Basically once you own an Asset Name, then you can create a subasset for a much lower fee. this essentially allows branding of the root name and then people will know that anything that starts with that is from the same issuer So Anon gets his Anon136 asset name. Now he can issue: Anon136.silver1oz Anon136.silvershot Anon136.silveretc It still has a squatting issue with it, but now the squatters have to squat on the names of the issuers, not the target asset. This is far riskier as if a specific name is taken, there are always others that can be used. Unlike "BTC", which is unique. If we are going to change the NXTcore for asset names, this one might be worth doing. James it could still collide if someone else registered Anon136.silver10z It looks to me like the Anon136.prefix can only be registered by the original user. Anon136.btc Anon136.google etc |
|
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:17:41 AM |
|
2 million Nxt buyer back on bter.
|
|
|
|
fusecavator
Member
Offline
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:18:10 AM |
|
0.01 Nxt would still be a high fee for messaging though... I would recommend a fee of about 0.0001 Nxt per message, if the only thing being sent is a message, the catch is you can only pay that low of a fee if the message is automatically deleted from the blockchain. I think the messages need to be perceived as being really cheap as we are competing against WhatsApp that offers messaging for 99 cents per year. The average teen sends 3,339 txts per month!! ( http://mashable.com/2010/10/14/nielsen-texting-stats/) This would be about 40,000 txts per year. Assuming he/she uses WhatsApp, that costs $0.99 per year, that works out to be $0.000025/txt Assuming Nxt will soon reach 10 cents that would be a fee of 0.00025 Nxt to compete with them on price alone, we also offer encryption but I'd say we really should try to compete when it comes to price as well. Because if we do it right, I do feel like this could be a killer app because we could probably even compete well with them price-wise. The money made off of this could then compensate for even lower transaction fees and the forgers could be profitable. And I worked through all the math but just deleted it to avoid clutter, I believe that we could even afford to charge lower than this assuming we delete messages once the app on the other end receives it, after all most text messages will be stored by the local apps on both sides and the blockchain/decentralized storage can be temporary.. only a few seconds in most cases. Forgers supporting the text messaging would have to be paid for their extra bandwidth though. Regard facebook built on top of Nxt.. actually I see some sense to that, we can afford to charge people a very low fee per post, that varies based on how long they want to store it, store it using the decentralized storage, the people in charge of make money off of that and use that money to advertise itself and grow a business. Why would people use it? Same advantage Dispora has, Diaspora is indeed very similar but I see it being hard to advertise itself, build it into Nxt and I know I would sign up for a Nxtbook account! Price isn't everything. I don't know anything about "WhatsApp", however as a long-time irc user, that $0.99/yr sounds rather steep for something I havn't been paying at all for for many years, so they must have some other draw considering they aren't competitive price-wise. I would consider endpoint-endpoint encryption a must, and that would be one of your draws imo. The problem with full-blown nxtbook though is that people don't want to just post text, they post pictures, videos, etc, and you just can't store all that in the blockchain, even on a temporary basis. |
|
|
|
|
msin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1004
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:18:45 AM |
|
Shot in the dark, is it decentralized sports betting via asset exchange?
Nope, think bigger, it's something that everyone uses (and is forced to use by some extent), but doesn't really like using due to one factor. NXT removes the factor. A Nxt Public Toilet? |
|
|
|
|
NxtMinnow
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:20:06 AM |
|
You mean the one at 4000 satoshi? 2 million Nxt buyer back on bter.
|
|
|
|
|
xyzzyx
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
I don't really come from outer space.
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:20:51 AM
Last edit: March 19, 2014, 02:48:33 AM by xyzzyx |
|
it could still collide if someone else registered Anon136.silver10z
If I understood the post correctly, that would actually be two assets arranged in a hierarchy. The first asset, the expensive to issue one, is the root asset. In this case that asset is called "Anon136". There is then another asset, a less expensive to issue one, that is a child of the root asset. In this case it's "silver10z". A child asset can only be issued by the creator of the root asset, if I'm understanding correctly. Think website names. When someone purchases Anon136.silver10z, he is specifying the one asset "silver10z" which is the child of asset "Anon136". Edit: the more I think about this, the more I like it. Esp. if the cost to issue child assets decreases the farther away the child asset is from the root asset. This would use market forces to encourage issuers to impose order on their asset listings. |
"An awful lot of code is being written ... in languages that aren't very good by people who don't know what they're doing." -- Barbara Liskov
|
|
|
|
btc2nxt
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:25:43 AM |
|
Nxt is a platform non-unique asset names are for decentralised platform. but there are half situation needing centralised platform. Can we make a compromise. i got a idea: if asset name contains "coin" , can be non-unique |
|
|
|
|
|
Sebastien256
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:31:08 AM |
|
Good news. Only asset ID was needed to be unique anyway. People can put nxt alias in asset description to point to asset owner site or something. That would help differentiate between asset. Hey by the way, now that non-unique asset names is decided, Would it be possible to allow to edit asset description if asset owner feel like he needs that? Let discuss this. |
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:36:25 AM |
|
Good news. Only asset ID was needed to be unique anyway. People can put nxt alias in asset description to point to asset owner site or something. That would help differentiate between asset. Hey by the way, Would it be possible to allow to edit asset description if asset owner feel like he needs that? Let discuss this. its a good solution imo just remember to check the id before you click purchase. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
brooklynbtc
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
AKA jefdiesel
|
|
March 19, 2014, 02:44:13 AM |
|
Good news. Only asset ID was needed to be unique anyway. People can put nxt alias in asset description to point to asset owner site or something. That would help differentiate between asset. Hey by the way, now that non-unique asset names is decided, Would it be possible to allow to edit asset description if asset owner feel like he needs that? Let discuss this. Adjusting the description is adjusting the whole Asset. Original Asset is what the investors purchase, sell, and value. IF you can adjust, why not adjust delete the description and make it worthless. If (as issuer) you sold all your shares, now the ASSET owns zero anything. Who is going to buy that? |
|
|
|
|
